What's sad is,I've seen Obama before....in the young Wonkies: Bill Bradley, the wonky

[KoKo]

Gary Hart and Jimmy Carter and even Bill Clinton who was criticized for "reading too much" and focusing on "policy" in endless night sessions where he jammed with other "great policy minds."

I heard the same speeches from Obama that I've heard from the Dem Candidates who WON ELECTION: Carter and Clinton. THEY BOTH promised HOPE AND CHANGE...and what happened under both of them.

I've heard it all they all leave me cold...and meanwhile the McCain Machine is the DARLING OF THE MSMEDIA. And so it goes...on and on....our hapless, clueless Dems keep at it...spinning the same message and always feeling bad when the Repugs send out their ATTACK MACHINE and the American People "cower before their Repug Might."

What's New? Nothing.... It's kind of depressing for those of us who've "seen it all back through Lyndon and JFK. It kinda get's like a "broken record" that always stays broken. We always wonder why...blame it on message, blame it on Media Distortion ...blame it on everything.

There's gotta be something wrong going on there...but all you Obama supporters ...HAVE AT IT...and I hope you don't end up in the DUST like the rest of them did...and are wondering what went wrong four years from now.

What is it about our Party that we can't seem to do good stuff when we control House and Senate or when we are "Out in the Wilderness?"

What IS IT? :shrug:

[LSparkle]

1. We have to FIGHT, but with HOPE, not fear ...

We need a candidate who is just as strong in trumpeting HOPE and a POSITIVE message as
the Rethugs are going to be in beating the drums of war and sliming our nominee. We have
to push the message of positive change and hope just as hard as they're going to run the
slime machine ... We need to call them on their negative politics of personal destruction
AT EVERY TURN, pointing out the difference between what we're appealing to (our better
angels) and what they're trying to bring out in us (our basest instincts: fear and
division). It's going to take a candidate with a big, broad VISION (yes, the "vision
thing"), not just someone playing politics as usual. Just responding to THEIR GAME
isn't going to cut it.

Obama is different from the candidates you mentioned. Carter and Clinton were idealistic
but Obama is leading a MOVEMENT -- over a million people have actually INVESTED in his
campaign -- and it's that kind of grassroots support that will help take a sledgehammer
to the Rethugs' slime machine once and for all.

[KoKo]

2. We need Hope for Change with "Back Up Troops!" Obama thinks he has them...but

so did others. Maybe "this time will be different." But...until we can convince our Dems that the Repugs and the "Military/Industrial Complex" is BAD FOR AMERICA...they will ALWAYS UNDERMINE...all our Democratic Efforts with our candidates... Just someone whose been around awhile..giving an observation.

We Dems ALWAYS hope things will be different...with every candidate we put forth.. We aren't STRONG ENOUGH...YET!

[Two Americas]

3. courageous post

You are asking the questions that must be asked, but too which there is as tremendous amount of resistance.

Some observations:

* The right wingers know where the battle lines are, and what the battle is about, and we do not.

* The right wingers go for results, we go for being right.

* The right wingers take their right wing philosophy and popularize it; we take popular opinion and hope to liberalize it.

* The right wingers lead with their ideology; we purge and destroy ours.

* We react to reality; they make a new reality.

* We try to serve two masters - the working class and the ruling class. They serve one.

[KoKo]

6. Thanks...and I'd add to your great list that all the Framing of George Lakoff

with his focus workshops with Congressional Leaders...STILL doesn't move them to get what the problem is..

[Two Americas]

9. Lakoff

I think Lakoff's work is interesting - he is "right" with what he says, and we love that - but as you say it does not get to the root problem.

I have strong opinions about this, as you can probably tell from my bullet points there, but I think it is powerful to let the questions you ask sink in. We will never have the answers if we cannot even tolerate the questions. Asking these questions is often seen as disloyalty, and violently rejected on that basis.

We confuse principles and ideals with tactics and strategy, and goals with methods. The Republicans do not labor under that handicap. It is vitally essential that we become willing to ruthlessly examine our methods and approaches, our tactics and strategy. Yet many of us will defend those as though we were defending principles and ideals, while at the same time acquiescing again and again to the corruption and perversion of principles and ideals, supposedly for the sake of "being practical" and "being realistic" and "winning." Yet with this approach, we lose both - principles and ideals are sullied and debased and we lose in the practical sense, as well.

[mdmc]

18. point taken

:thumbsup:

[Two Americas]

4. K and R

Kicking this post to see if we can generate some discussion.

[blm]

5. So, THAT is your reason for supporting Hillary? Fearing the ATTEMPT to get open government

by the citizenry scares you, then why even post at a Dem activist board?

[KoKo]

7. I don't support either Hillary or Obama. I can't vote until May ...like YOU blm...and

I'm still making up my mind, here in NC. Frankly, neither one seem to me to be able to win against a Repug and the Voting Machines that are still out there that can "recalibrate votes."

I'm one of the "forgotten Dems" without a candidate I can truly support...

[blm]

8. Yet your posts are proHillary and antiObama for some time now. I would have pegged

you in the past as a fighter against the Bush protecting wing of the Dem party, not one who developed a soft spot for the biggest Bushprotecting Dems in the party.

Go figure.

[KoKo]

17. I don't post much about either...but when I post ...I go back and forth.

But..if I had to say I'm biased for one or the other...I'd have to say it's for Hillary staying in and a brokered Convention. (I still have hopes for Gore....yeah...I know...I just never will give up that dream that he will be redeemed through Karma) but there's much I like about Hillary and much that worries me about Obama because I feel that his supporters are being suckered like I and many other Dems have been for decades. (I'm older than you...so have watched it and had too much disappointment along with my always "hoping for change.")

So, I muddle back and forth about Hillary/Obama/Obama/Hillary...but my gut instincts after having heard the same promises over and over and over from our Dem Candidates through the years leaves me always questioning. I think what you pick up from me as bias...is me "questioning."

Peace, blm... :hi:

[Two Americas]

11. please

Don't bring personal feuds and arguments from other threads onto this potentially valuable thread.

[blm]

14. You're reading us wrong.

KoKo and I go at it like this as friendly exchanges and have for years - we just don't mince words or pretty it up.

[BeyondGeography]

10. And we should prefer the candidate who is despised by half the country because........

:freak:

[Two Americas]

12. damned horse race

Can we have any discussions here that are not petty arguments about the horse race and childish feuds between the supporters of the two canidates?

[BeyondGeography]

13. The mighty KoKo has informed the kids that they are misguided

the problem with this thread starts there.

[KoKo]

19. They are the same "kids" that "I was" as a hopeful young Dem Voter...way back.

There's been little change in what our Dems PROMISE compared to what they deliver. The Repugs HIT THE JACKPOT with REAGAN AND BUSH II... My GOD...THEY OWN IT ALL!

That's where I come from...and not some egotistical rant as you wanted to box me into. Just saying...

[Two Americas]

20. I see

The problem starts in your imagination, then. That is fine. I am asking if it can stay there for a little while.

[madrchsod]

15. wonky-wonkies

"inclined to shake as from weakness or defect; "a rickety table"; "a wobbly chair with shaky legs"; "the ladder felt a little wobbly"; "the bridge still stands though one of the arches is wonky"



"turned or twisted toward one side; "a...youth with a gorgeous red necktie all awry"- G.K.Chesterton; "his wig was, as the British say, skew-whiff"



. Shaky; feeble. 2. Wrong; awry.


:rofl:


:smoke: if ya got'um

[mdmc]

16. We are part of the ruling class. We can only go as far as the

ruling class allows.

Every once in a while a good movement comes along, and great change is made. The rest of the time ya just toe the corporate line.

[Two Americas]

23. we are?

How are we - not sure what you mean by "we" - part of the ruling class?

[mdmc]

26. the democratic party

is.

[Two Americas]

29. right

I think that is true. The Democratic party leadership represents the ruling class, but I don't think of that as "we."

I think how we use "we" is revealing. One significant difference between activists and those most involved in politics, who are mostly from a narrow demographic, and the general public is how they use the word "we" and what they mean when they say "America" or the country. Those better educated and more successful unconsciously identify with the ruling class. When they talk about "American history" they mean the history of the ruling class. They say "we did such and such" when they mean "the ruling class did such and such."

[KoKo]

24. Yes...and some think the "Good Movement" has come with Obama...my problem is

that I've lived with so many good and GREAT Movements...that I know that we need to be cautious and pragmatic especially when we know that we are SO CONTROLLED by the "Powers that Be" (Military/Industrial Complex, Mainstream Corporate Media and the Bush/Cheney/Baker/Wall Streeters."

I fear that we've never been so controlled in our American History than we are now after Bush II completing what Nixon followed through by Reagan and Bush I and II have wrought. And...Clinton I and II helped them along in their DeRegulation efforts and the rest...plus, had a demoralizing scandal that gave the RW more fodder. I understand that's why Hillary shouldn't be President. But, I don't see it as why Obama SHOULD be President. I don't see either one making the changes that need to be made. Neither will ever have the power...

I understand that the Lefty Progressives feel OBAMA can be RUN...to be the President WE WANT...but I don't trust that to happen. Obama is too much a product of Harvard/Columbia and Ford Foundation to deviate any more than the Clintons...is what I fear. I worry Obama will never prosecute what the Criminal Bush/Cheney did any more than Clintons went after Poppy for "Iran-Contra" and the rest of the evil doing back into Reagan. We don't ever seem to have Dems elected who will really MAKE THE BIG CHANGE...they get too cautious. Jimmy Carter did try over the energy problems but got backed down with the Energy Crisis/Iran Hostages and that he made mistakes with keeping America out of the Olympics and started Privatization by throwing Mental Patients out of the State Hospitals to have them in Group Homes which failed by causing thousands of Mentally Ill to be thrown out on the Streets because his efforts were so defunded. He was a disaster because his "good intentions" were thwarted by the "Powers that Be."

Anyway...too many Dem Disasters means we need to be cautious...

[mdmc]

27. I am a pessimist

yet I think that we (the democratic party) will win the white house and pick up other posts as well.

[KoKo]

42. It's not a bad thing to be a Pessimist...who thinks we will "WIN!"

It's what happens after that...that's the worry. But, this poster on DU is certainly looking for a Dem Win...but worried about the "roadblocks" to get there...and what comes after.

So..I'm more a "Pessimist" than you...but we can agree on the above..for sure.

[mdmc]

21. wow

this place has gone mad

[dionysus]

22. you've jumped the shark

:(

[KoKo]

25. What Shark....have I jumped? I'm a lifelong Dem...seen it all ...shouldn't we discuss

any of this? What we've experienced? :shrug: Or, cover it up and look for a new savior with charisma that we pin all our hopes on and find out that we still are back where we were? The problem is US...that we don't work hard enough to go after the "Powers that Be!" We Dems always look for someone we "believe in" and trust it to them to pull us out of what the Repug Machine has successfully done for decades. What kind of Party are we, REALLY? We throw our activists under the bus every two years for "Election Cycles?" How do you build a BASE when you do this stuff?

[Sparkly]

28. Democratic House, Democratic Senate, AND Democratic President....

That's what we need, for some significant number of years, to undo the mess the GOP has created.

I don't think Obama is "wonky" the way others have been; I think he'll work hard, listen carefully to his advisers, and do all he can. On the other hand, they are all politicians, the system moves slowly (unless you just act illegally and unethically and thwart laws, treaties, and the foundations of our government, like BushCo!).

Hope is worth having, because the fights are worth fighting! No matter who it is, we need to get a Democrat in office -- in every office possible, in fact -- and THEN, hold their feet to the fire!

[Two Americas]

30. it works the other way around

Social progress has always come from people organizing and pressuring one of the two parties. When we pin our hopes on and give our loyalty to a party and its leaders without placing any demands on them we are rewarding them for being tepid and cautious, and signaling to them that we are easily bought. I think it is a fantasy to think that merely filing the government with people who have a D after their name represents any serious or important change.

If we give them our allegiance for nothing in return and they win, why would they ever change? That is why we have the congressional leadership that we have - we said, in essence "just get elected, Dems, and we will be happy." Well they got elected. All we asked was that they flatter us a little and mouth a few words that made us feel good. They kept that promise. We cannot hold them responsible to meet expectations that we did not demand that they meet.

The party leadership knows how easy we are. They know how little it takes to get our support. They are representing us perfectly. The problem is that we are not giving them much that is of any substance to represent.

[KoKo]

31. If the hope is that Obama will swing Progressive...then given the endorsements he's gotten

and all the money from small donors perhaps he will listen. Perhaps he won't be attacked from the minute he takes office the way the rest of the Dems have been. Maybe the Mainstream Corporate Media will be so overwhelmed they will treat him differently. I suppose that's the hope we have and that we get some real progressives into the House & Senate where the action "could be" if we had more Dems with Spine. But, we also need a President with more spine.. Look at what Bush has done. The new President will have vast powers that go beyond the imagination of those who came before.

[Two Americas]

35. lots of confusion, eh?

I am not certain that the Democrats we have in office lack spine. That suggests that they would do things differently if they only had the courage to do so. Maybe they don't want or intend to do anything different.

It seems to me that they pander a little to the left to keep people in line and to silence us, but have no intention of doing any more than that. Now we have a candidate who says that we need to make the disagreements magically go away, as though people fighting back against the massive power arrayed against them were the problem - that old divisiveness from the past that we are all supposedly so tired of. The cause of the social problems is that the people are being preyed upon by wealthy and powerful interests, not that they fight back against this.

Is it even possible that by force of personality one person could somehow overwhelm mass media? That seems highly unlikely. Why would the corporations controlling the media act against there own interests because the president was charismatic or a good speaker or had good ideas? If MSM treats a leader well, I think we can rest assured that this would only be because he was doing their bidding, not the bidding of the people. Or are we to imagine that the interests of the corporations controlling the media are congruent with the best interests of the people? Were that true, then we wouldn't need any "change," would we?

[Two Americas]

32. part of the answer

I think that the response, or lack of response to this thread has to some extent answered your important question. There is no interest in talking about tactics and strategy, and as far as that goes no interest in talking about economics and power among modern liberals. In other words, there is no real interest in politics. Personal choices has supplanted politics on the left, and that reinforces the right wing rugged individualism ideas. No genuine politics can co-exist with that.

The only thing people care about is their own personal "belief system," their personal choices and preferences. They will argue about those - who is "right" in their personal "beliefs" - but they won't talk politics.

[KoKo]

33. Yes....that seems to be the truth of what's going on. At least

around here. Maybe the time for large Forum discussion and activism has passed.

Thanks for trying to get a discussion going. "Personal Politics"...that's the game all under the guise of bringing "Unity." HA!

[Two Americas]

34. important point there

"'Personal Politics'"...that's the game all under the guise of bringing 'Unity.' HA!"

That is the recipe for the acceptance of fascism by the general public, of course. We obsess over what is happening in the government and politics, but we ignore what is happening with the population. The mood of the population drives politics and government. When "unity" is formed from the aggregate of personal politics - actually not politics, but personal and emotional preferences and prejudices - it will always seek the lowest common denominator. The fascist movements in Europe in the 30's promised "change" and "hope" and lots of excitement and "for us or against us" drama, and the emotionally satisfying sense of belonging to something new and different. Just what the change would be was always vague - "everyone knew" what that change would look like, and people either "got it" or they didn't, and those who didn't "get it" were attacked. Each individual projected their own personal secret desires onto the movement - it was whatever you wanted to imagine that it was, and those who wouldn't go along were attacked with whatever was handy to attack them with. Everything good and true was found within the movement, and anything and anyone outside of the movement was to be seen as everything evil and false.

"Read the book" people were told when they asked what the movements were all about, or "go to a rally" or "listen to his speeches." Anyone objecting or resisting was accused of living in the past, of having obsolete ideas, or of supporting the status quo and all of the corruption and evil associated with the "old politics."

[KoKo]

36. And your point expands it into a disturbing scenario....

but it seems hard even for those with some sense of history to see what could happen while they are so caught up in the moment of not dealing with the past but wishing to leap over mistakes (leaving the consequences of the mistake to lie in limbo.) That "bright new future" must not be complicated or sullied by demanding that the former Administration be held accountable for past deeds as part of the package for moving forward in the spirit of "Unity" for "Hope and Change."

[Bake]

37. Obama supporters talk about the "great movement"

They seem to believe their leader is some great liberal. He's not. He's about as corporatist as HRC. I suspect some of his followers are going to be greatly disappointed about a year into his term, if he is elected.

Bake

[KoKo]

39. He's "careful and calculated" and Dem Fixer/Jim Baker Buddie..Lee Hamilton endorsed him...

He's what the "Powers that Be" want........to be the "caretaker for them?" :shrug: Is THIS what it comes down to? So much work since the "Internet" ...and so little progress?

Petitions, Marches on DC and in our States against that BUSH/CHENEY WAR...and FAXES, PHONES and getting C-Span III hearings which fade in and out according to our CONNECTION SPEED.

A LOT OF FOLKS have been WORKING 24/7...losing sleep some on Meds and SICK over the STOLEN ELECTION 2000 where we MOBILIZED...and it all comes down to someone as a Morph of JFK's GHOST and a REHASH of CLINTON III!

What have we become as a country? WHOW ARE WE...as AMERICANS? :shrug:

[KoKo]

38. I watched Obama on Matthews tonight with the College Students who asked great questions....

But......I've heard it ALL BEFORE...If I was in that audience at "West Chester College" ...I would have wondered and asked the same questions.

My post stands. I'VE HEARD IT ALL BEFORE! When will our Dems "GET SPINE!"

I've been waiting and waiting and voting and voting and gotten active and done EVERYTHING I COULD THINK OF FOR YEARS...but it's always the same......... :shrug: It's ALWAYS the SAME! A REPUG COMES IN AND STEALS IT FROM US! WHY? :shrug: We Sound GREAT...TALK GREAT...but we Flubb Up!

[KoKo]

43. How would an "OBAMA/RICHARDSON" ticket work out there in America...

I'm thinking it would be the Political Event of the Decades if Obama chose or hinted at Richardson for VP. I think this Ticket could be a Big Winner. :shrug:

[Erin Elizabeth]

40. Does this stuff come down in emails?

Is there some Hillary email list that you get one a day and it has your arguments of the day in it?

Because I swear I was JUST debating with a Hillary supporter on a completely unrelated, non-political board and she used the same line about Bill Bradley, Gary Hart, all that.

Weird. Deja vu.

[KoKo]

41. I don't have time to do Blogs other than DU...but maybe it's a "MEME" where

psychologists say "thoughts" can move around without any apparent "connection" in the "Etherspace."

I think that's what you are pointing out. That different folks in different spaces out there, can come to the same "conclusion at the same time" is something Scientists have been working on for YEARS!

I'm hopeful their studies will finally yield some results..soon..:shrug: